alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 913 

Supporting a Federal, publically-funded universal school meal and nutrition 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

Mr. NOLAN (for himself, Mr. TAKANO, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Mr. 

SERRANO, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HONDA, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. FUDGE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting a Federal, publically-funded universal school meal 

and nutrition program. 

Whereas school nutrition programs help end childhood hunger and provide access to healthy, nutritious meals; 

Whereas access to school meals has been shown to improve 

educational outcomes; 

Whereas the United States Department of Agriculture’s Community Eligibility Provision was established to provide 

greater access to school meals throughout the Nation; 

Whereas the expansion of the Community Eligibility Provision to all schools would increase the availability of school 

meals for students and reduce childhood hunger; 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 913 IH 

Whereas the Community Eligibility Provision also eliminates 

any stigma that accompanies free or reduced meals and 

students unable to purchase meals due to insufficient account funds; and 

Whereas expansion of the Community Eligibility Provision 

would further allow schools to shift resources from paperwork to providing high quality meals: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 a Federal, publically-funded universal school meal and nu3 trition program. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GENZYME DEVELOPEMENT PARTNERS, L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS INCLUDED IN THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR 1997 FOR GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              22
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    39
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       631
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (986)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (986)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>GENZYME DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, L.P. IS A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.  NET
EARNINGS OR LOSS ARE REPORTED PER PARTNERSHIP UNIT INSTEAD OF PER SHARE.  FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, THE PARTNERSHIP'S NET LOSS WAS ALLOCATED $0
PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT (737 UNITS IN TOTAL) AND $986,000 TO THE GENERAL
PARTNER (1 UNIT).
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 87789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27815]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Indian Health Service

RIN 0917-AA23


Reimbursement Rates for Calendar Year 2024

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is provided that the Director of the Indian Health 
Service (IHS) has approved the rates for inpatient and outpatient 
medical care provided by the IHS facilities for Calendar Year 2024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Director of the Indian Health Service (IHS), under the 
authority of sections 321(a) and 322(b) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 248 and 249(b)), Public Law 83-568 (42 U.S.C. 2001(a)), 
and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
has approved the following rates for inpatient and outpatient medical 
care provided by IHS facilities for Calendar Year 2024 for Medicare and 
Medicaid beneficiaries, beneficiaries of other federal programs, and 
for recoveries under the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 
2651-2653). The inpatient rates for Medicare Part A are excluded from 
the table below. That is because Medicare inpatient payments for IHS 
hospital facilities are made based on the prospective payment system, 
or (when IHS facilities are designated as Medicare Critical Access 
Hospitals) on a reasonable cost basis. Since the inpatient per diem 
rates set forth below do not include all physician services and 
practitioner services, additional payment shall be available to the 
extent that those services are provided.

Inpatient Hospital Per Diem Rate (Excludes Physician/Practitioner 
Services)

Calendar Year 2024
    Lower 48 States: $5,083.
    Alaska: $4,326.

Outpatient per Visit Rate (Excluding Medicare)

Calendar Year 2024
    Lower 48 States: $719.
    Alaska: $1,060.

Outpatient per Visit Rate (Medicare)

Calendar Year 2024
    Lower 48 States: $667.
    Alaska: $961.

Medicare Part B Inpatient Ancillary Per Diem Rate

Calendar Year 2024
    Lower 48 States: $963.
    Alaska: $1,341.

Outpatient Surgery Rate (Medicare)

    Established Medicare rates for freestanding Ambulatory Surgery 
Centers.
Effective Date for Calendar Year 2024 Rates
    Consistent with previous annual rate revisions, the Calendar Year 
2024 rates will be effective for services provided on or after January 
1, 2024, to the extent consistent with payment authorities, including 
the applicable Medicaid State plan.

Roselyn Tso,
Director, Indian Health Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-27815 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4166-14-P
# C_2010063EN.01000402.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL v Administración del Estado

(Case C-118/08) (1)

1

(Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of equivalence - Action for damages against the State - Breach of European Union law - Breach of the Constitution)

2010/C 63/06

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo (Spain) — Infringement by a Member State of the rights granted to individuals under European Union law — Obligation to remedy the damage caused — An act contrary to the constitution of a Member State and an act contrary to European Union law — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law precludes the application of a rule of a Member State under which an action for damages against the State, alleging a breach of that law by national legislation which has been established by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given pursuant to Article 226 EC, can succeed only if the applicant has previously exhausted all domestic remedies for challenging the validity of a harmful administrative measure adopted on the basis of that legislation, when such a rule is not applicable to an action for damages against the State alleging breach of the Constitution by national legislation which has been established by the competent court.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 503 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 503

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 29, 2015.
    Resolved, That the Clerk be instructed to inform the President of the United 
States that the House of Representatives has elected Paul D. Ryan, a 
Representative from the State of Wisconsin as Speaker of the House of 
Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2021182EN.01004902.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/49

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 26 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil — France) — Bank of China Limited v Ministre de l’Action and des Comptes publics

(Case C-737/19) (1)

(2021/C 182/65)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
# C_2009069EN.01001001.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

(Case C-19/08) (1)

1

(Right of asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application - Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker - Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)

(2009/C 69/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Migrationsverket

Applicant:

Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) — Interpretation of Articles 20(1)(d) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Taking back by a Member State of an applicant for asylum who is in another Member State and lodged another application for asylum there — Start of the period for transfer of the asylum seeker

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national are to be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
#### Hakim Consultants Ltd., Respondent, v Formosa Ltd. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 20, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order and directed plaintiff’s depositions of defendants to proceed prior to the deposition by defendants of plaintiff, reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion and the defendants’ motion for a protective order granted, without costs.

In this action by a minority shareholder for breach of a shareholders’ agreement, served on or about September 12, 1990, defendants, on or about October 12, 1990, answered and *760noticed the plaintiff for deposition on November 15, 1990. Plaintiff’s principal is a resident of Israel and sought to have the examination take place in mid-December 1990. Plaintiff also noticed the defendants for depositions prior to that of the plaintiff. The motion court denied the defendants’ motion for a protective order and scheduled the depositions, giving plaintiff priority. In the absence of special circumstances, priority of deposition belongs to the defendant if a notice for examination is served with the answer. (CPLR 3106 [a]; *Bucci v Lydon,*116 AD2d 520 [1986].) The alleged breach of a shareholder’s fiduciary duty and the fact that plaintiff’s principal is a resident of Israel do not, as plaintiff contends, constitute special circumstances here. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Ellerin, J.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: In this

action by a minority stockholder for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiff’s witness was *en route*to New York from the Middle East for purposes of being deposed when defendants advised that they were not prepared to go forward with the deposition on the scheduled date thereby necessitating a further overseas trip by the witness in the future for such purpose. Under such circumstances I cannot find that the IAS Court abused its discretion when it granted plaintiff the right to depose one of the defendants and a defense witness prior to the necessitated further return of plaintiff’s witness. The IAS Judge, who is familiar with the case and the prior proceedings therein, is ordinarily in the best position to monitor the progress of that case, including discovery. Accordingly, I would affirm.
# C_2011063EN.01001301.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin, Germany) — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin

(Case C-336/08) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 63/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Christel Reinke

Appellant:

Respondent: AOK Berlin

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC and Article 34(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 159) — Reimbursement of medical costs incurred in connection with emergency treatment of a national of a Member State in a private hospital of another Member State as a result of the refusal of the competent public hospital to provide that benefit on the ground of insufficient capacity — National legislation of the competent Member State excluding reimbursement of medical costs incurred for emergency treatment in a private hospital of another Member State but allowing reimbursement of those costs if charged by a private hospital situated in national territory

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

There is no need to reply to the reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) by decision of 27 June 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Douglas Cherry 

2 

custody and support case out of which the underlying child support 

enforcement action arises and in which the district court has apparently 

determined that petitioner is willfully underemployed. 

Second, to the extent petitioner challenges his current 

confinement in the Clark County Detention Center, his petition indicates 

that he is set to be released on September 26, 2015. The warrant was 

served on August 27, 2015, but petitioner did not file this petition until 

September 22. The delay in challenging that confinement leaves this 

court with insufficient time to order an answer and deliberate on and 

resolve the petition before his release. 

Third, to the extent petitioner challenges the most recent 

contempt finding and imposition of another 25-day term of conditional 

confinement from the hearing before the master on September 1, 2015, 

this writ petition appears premature. According to the appendix, 

petitioner has filed an objection in the lower court to the master's 

recommendation in which he raises issues about his inability to pay the 

arrears, and a hearing on that matter before the district court is set for 

October 13, 2015. See NRS 425.3844. Under these circumstances, we 

decline to intervene at this time and we deny the petition. See NRAP 

21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 

849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is 

purely discretionary with this court). 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirre 

(0) t94Th 
cc: Hon. Rena G. Hughes, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Jimmerson Hansen 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Juliann Fox 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

071 1947A -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aubrey Drakes, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered August 19, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant was not charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance under a statutory presumption *(see,*Penal Law § 220.25 [1]), it follows that he did not have automatic standing to challenge the search of the livery cab in which he was a passenger *(see, People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351; *842
      *People v McCary,*173 AD2d 856; *People v Metz,*168 AD2d 515; *People v Castellar,*159 AD2d 312). The rule of *People v Millan*(69 NY2d 514), relied upon by the defendant, applies only in cases where the prosecution has charged the defendant with possession of contraband based upon a statutory presumption *(see, People v Wesley, supra).*Since the defendant did not prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle which was searched, the hearing court properly concluded that he lacked standing. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2022119EN.01000401.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — European Commission v Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s., Vallourec Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-891/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 3(2), (3) and (6), and Article 17 - Determination of injury - Examination of the effect of dumped imports on the prices of like products sold on the EU market - Analysis of price undercutting - Application of the product control number (PCN) method - Obligation of the European Commission to take into account the different market segments relating to the product under consideration and all sales of like products by the sampled EU producers)

(2022/C 119/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, and subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and by K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (represented by E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, advocaten), ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Válcovny trub Chomutov a.s., Vallourec Deutschland GmbH (represented by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (T-500/17, not published, EU:T:2019:691); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission (T-500/17, not published, EU:T:2019:691);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of Periodic Financial Report **

**by      the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

**Pursuant      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                        |                                   |                                   |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Date: November                17, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Dennis                Calvert |
|                                        | Dennis                Calvert          |
|                                        | Chief                Executive Officer |

|                                          |                                             |                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Date: November                  17, 2006 | By:                                    | /s/ Dennis                  Calvert |
|                                          | Dennis                  Calvert                  |
|                                          | Interim                  Chief Financial Officer |

----